Panther wrote:When discussing relations with the Muslim world, IMNSHO it is very important to learn about the true and complete history of Muslims and Hindus in India... and how the situation was "resolved" for a very long time.
Not that I think this is the way to go, but...
One way to obtain "solid, objective evidence" is by dropping a nuke. None of us would like the results of the evidence, but it would certainly be solid and objective... especially given the fact that the "radicals" such as OBL have stated that to be one of their goals here in the U.S.
I'm just sayin'...
The moghuls in India were oppressive and stupid(I don't care how lovely the Taj Mahal was. Building a stupid giant decoration while places like Oxford were being built in other empires shows the wrped priorities of the Indian sultans) You don't have to read polemic like robert spencer to know the stupidity of the mughal empire. Calling them religious extremists however is an over simplification.
(forgive the spelling)
But dropping a nuke would give evidence to what? That Sam Harris has a far too terrifying influence on the minds of people? Or Robert spencer.
I don't like Obama, he's basically the same ##### with a different face who says pretty words. Hasn't done anything but say pretty words.
But at the same time, saying he ruined america is also false, because all he does is say pretty things. He really doesn't do anything. Even health care reform wasn't really reform, it barely changes the system. Any change he makes is cosmetic. The man *****. Left or right, he just *****.
Their own words also bitch about politics. Again and again. Go to the streets of pakistan, saudi arabia, Lebanon and ask the locals why they are upset. Or why they vote for extremist parties, why there is anti-western sentiment.Val
"So you haven't convinced me that extending an olive branch to the muslim community is a bad idea."
Perhaps not, but given the very real problems of trying to prove a negative perhaps it would be a more constructive argument to present all the ways that such a outreach has actually worked ?
Perhaps comparing and contrasting the number of plots and attempted attacks and actual attacks on US soil under the "olive branch" policy and others?
Personally I question if Obama directing the head of NASA that one of his primary missions is conduct outreach to the muslim communiy is helping to reduce terrorism but I would love to hear the details and facts about how it is saving lives and making us safer.
I think a lot of things get lost under the charge that we somehow "provoke" terrorism---an argument that hinges on our attackers having factually legitmate beefs that we can address.
If their issues are not factual, they want things that we can't provide/address or are motivated by drives that we can't come to common understanding/agreement on then we have a set of serious problems.
Agreeing to disagree is a liberal western value/notion. It is not one shared by much of the world.
According to many of our attackers own words they are acting in accord with their relgious beliefs.
If that is the case then I don't think there is much that we can do by way of "olive branchs" to stop people postive that they have a direct instruction from God himself to kill infidels to stop the violence.
The numbers of muslims killed by "fellow" muslims over theological disputes, co-relgionists charging their "fellows" with not being "good" muslims, political in-fighting, land disputes etc is vastly larger than any "outsider" has done. (except maybe the Mongols)
Point being there is much to be considered by way of systemic intercine violence being the norm and not the exception.
I would also suggest that making peace with sets of people quite willing to kill total strangers all over the planet "because" the little nation of Denmark published some cartoons they don't like, or assault and rape women "because" they were dressed "imodestly", hang gays for the "crime" of being gay etc might be operating from a seriously different cognitive framework.....a framework that is going to make nearly impossible to work things out with.
Don't have an issue with "extending an olive branch." Just would like to know to whom we are extending it and if it works or not
And in their own words, the grand mufti of saudi arabia more than once declared the killing of non-combatants strictly forbidden(i totally disagree with him on many many other issues) other saudi clerics followed suit. When 9/11 happened, there was a candle light vigil for the victims in Iran. Iran of all places. The mufti's in egypt(home of the brotherhood) also layed out the immorality of murdering innocent civilians and textually supported it. Hell nearly every major religious authority in the muslim world condemmned it, i don't even agree with half these ultra-orthodox fools on other theological issues.
But for all their religiously inspired crazyness, they have shown an abhorrance for slaughter, and are reasonable enough to have an olive branch extended to them.
And the response always comes down to one or two things. Real or imagined, this is what people fear: Western backed dictatorships and oppressive regimes, governments that provide little domestic support, leaving the brother hood to provide social services such as education(You can imagine what they are teaching) or medical supplies.
The second issue that terrifies and leaves the typical muslim open to radicalization is fear of genocide. Fox can be seen in the middle east. They see robert spencer sitting there with Sean Hannity, they see their holy book compared to Mein Kamf. Seeing calls to invade IranEven if they are right, it doesn't exactly make people feel safe.
Sam Harris and his call to drop nukes is supposed to make the conflict less full of fear? My skin shrivled when i read such statements out of the book of a so called intellectual.
Sam Harris writes how Pew results came in stating how most muslims support suicide bombings. But if you look at his soarces yourself, the question asked for the Pew polls was "UNDER ILLIGAL OCCUPATION" which is a significant difference. Dissagreement over suicide bombing under occupation is okay, but it changes the parameters. More over, later pew polls had varying results. Gallup is even more different.
Who is the olive branch directed too? Probably the governments. How exactly do you reach the people? The only way is overall media. And as stated above, the overall media isn't exactly extending an olive branch to the middle east at all.
My views on this new conflict has changed over time. It's really basically two entire people around the world east and west grossly misinformed about eachother. Many(not all) in the muslim world often have a strange conception of the west, that all teh woman are sluts, christian fanatics everywhere, secular forces destablizing morality, baby killing(abortion) and a strong will to conquar the muslim world. They see Obama kissing the saudi kings hand or shake the hand of other dicators and burn with anger. How can the self proclaimed leaders of democracy support these evil men? And the one voice opposing these greedy men is usually the extremists or nationalists.
While the west seems to think there is a powerful will to establish a new caliphate and forcefully take over. A belief that every conflict is religiously motivated(when nationalism plays a huge roll) woman being stoned every week, when it is rare even in the middle east(unfortuantly, there is a woman right now to be executed for adulty. Horrible, horrible) but still not the norm. People who are poorly educated, violent. When there are very intellegent people in the middle east, kind and highly hospitable. In Qatar you will see both woman wearing Bikinis and Burkas. Men with beards, and men with suits. Side by side.
Egypt has it's flaws, but you see the same trend. A woman in an Abaya walking with a woman wearing tight clothing, her hair down.
In lebanon, right wing condeleeza rices intern interviewed member of Hezbollah, while dancing at a night club. There were woman members of hezbullah drinking and partying away. Needless to say, he was astounded and had to rethink his conception of these groups. Are they violent due to religious zeal or political anger?
Religious langauge is a norm for every aspect of life, even secular actions. It's the same as bill clinton referencing god in speeches when his actions with monica lewinski really show his true beliefs.
yes there has always been violence in the region, but being a norm is a result of the last twenty years i would say.
On a brighter note, George Friedman says that in the view of history this war on terror will be nothing but irrelevent, a distraction for the people to bring back some semblance of a cold wor threat to keep everyone jumpy. But hey he could be horribley wrong.